MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2799, 14 March 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—THIS DAY. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., R..M.) Civil Cases. Maclean and Stewart v. J. Drew, claim, £l4 ss. Judgment by default with costs. Peacock and another, v. Thompson, claim £8 8s lOd. Adjourned for seven days. Jackson v. Glulee, claim £9O 5s 3d. In this case Mr Jameson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Reid for defendant. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. ; Mr Reid gave notice of appeal. Jonas and others v. T. W. Fyfe claim, £lB. Mr White for plaintiff; Mr Hamersley for defendant. M. Jonas, deposed—Defendant is indebted to the firm of Jonas, Hart and Wildie. The account has often been rendered, but defendant pleaded inability to pay. Mr Davidson is liquidating the firms affairs. To Mr Hamersley—He has had the account rendered him. Witness knew the accounts were always legally, sent out to everybody indebted to the defendant as: well as others. He would not swear of his own knowledge that defendant had received the account. His (witness’) authority for advertisements was in the book (produced.) The advertisements were agreed upon between himself, Lane and Fyfe. The firm do not always have written authority for advertising. The properties advertised are Mr Fyfe’s. Do not know whether Eyfe had certain sashes charged as bought at auction. Lane and Fyfe instructed witness re advertising. All instructions were from Fyfe. He would not swear to that. He would not swear that he paid the whole amount to the papers. Auction- ■ eers are allowed a discount by the papers. [Witness here .submitted some of his books.] Examination continued—A rebate was made on a certain account in consequence of an interview between himself and the defendant. He remembered defendant taking away the sashes. People take away goods after the sale. No obstacle was made to defendant taking these goods' away. Witness reduced another account in consequence ,of an interview. Mr Lane and Mr Fyfe’s property are adjacent and opposite. Both used to see me. Have paid- more for. advertising than ■. charged. Defendant never said anything against this account. Could not swear that this account was paid for Apsley property. Recently Mr Fyfe complained of being charged for Apsley property. William Davidson, liquidator in the estate of Jonas, Hart, and Wildie, said he had often seen Mr Fyfe about the account. The account was two or three times reduce, and Mr Fyfe often promised to pay. Did not know of Mr Jonas allowing a rebate. He never had rendered a similar account to the one sued on. Mr Fyfe would never have defended the account, but for alleged objectionable treatment by Mr Jonas. The recent transactions between Jonas and Fyfe had nothing to do with the matter in dispute,. [The case was here posponed for the production of certain books.] BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT. Josephus Murphy, licensee of the Pleasant Point Hotel, was charged with selling one glass of beer on Sunday March 5. Mr Hamersley appeared for the defence. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The following evidence was heard : John Alfred Dnnn, laborer, of Pleasant Point, said he was staying at the Hotel opposite Murphy’s on March 5. He went to Murphy’s at half-past eight in the morning to take a man to have a glass of beer. The man’s name was Tom, Had two pints of beer (long drinks), one for himself and one for Tom, Witness paid Is to Murphy. Was there again at 12 o’clock, William Rayner was drinking and witness called for a glass for himself and 'one for Rayner. Mr Hamersley objected to any other charge being gone into. ' The objection was allowed. To Mr Hamersley —Raynor was there before me. All conversation between me and anybody Rayner heard. Iliad no words with Murphy except to order the beer. Xtayner was sitting near me, I could not swear ho could have heard. He did not ask me if I was a traveller. I did not tell Murphy I was a traveller. I laid an information against Poff three years ago, and others. I shear, saw, and have no fixed residence. Have not been a fortnight idle during twelve months. I came to the Point from the hotel at Albury ; before that from Fairlie Creek. I came to the Point on the 24th of last month. I arrived there on Saturday night. Have never threatened to do for Murphy. 1 drank the beer and paid for it. Nobody was there except Raynor and Murphy. I did not Bay to Mr Rayner that I had

been waiting six years to catch Murphy. William Rayner—l am a stockman. I was at Pleasant Point on the sth, at Murphy’s. I saw Dunn in the bar. parlor. He came to the bar-room. He said “ will you give me a glass of beer?” Murphy said, “Are you a traveller?” and Dunn said “ The beers were served. I could not swear he paid for them. lam not sure whether I shouted or not. I walked out and left him and Murphy talking. To Mr Hamersley—Have known last witness a year or two. He is a rolling stone. Ho said he was a “ bona-fide traveller. His Worship—Can you remember all these matters, but not whether you had a second drink. Witness I think I did Your Worship. Mr Hamersley here asked to have the case dismissed and Dunn proceeded against for perjury. • For the defence Josephus Murphy was called and sto.ted that Dunn came in when ho wqs reading, liayner was there at the time. Said he was a traveller and witness consented to give him a glass of beer. Knew him before, years ago. To Mr Pender— Saw him before, that morning._ He had a drink. His Worship thought the evidence slender, and as to Ilayner’s evidence he did not believe a word of it. His Worship dismissed the case, andppinted out to the defendant that more care on his part would probably have prevented (.roceedings being taken. The case of Jonas v, Fyfe was then resumed, and after further argument it was adjourned. ‘ ' Shepherd v. Fyfe. This .case was adjourned for the production of certain documents. [ . [Left sitting.] . ■